"Maverick" Construction - CP 2007

Originally posted by coasterfan4444

^ Lets stop flaming and get back on topic guys.

On topic: As much as I would have loved to see that roll stay something is telling me that this S curve is going to be just as good. The forces *should* stay close to the same as with the roll but without the stress on the trains. Though I am disappointed that the roll must go out I can see where the problem would be on the trains.

The S-curve is a very weak replacement. There are already two of them on the ride, so this will be the third, and I can't see whats so great about 2 turns linked together (which is what an s-curve is).

Oh well, the ride had a bad layout after the 70mph launch with or without the roll (I don't know what the designer was thinking with that hill then completely random diving turn into the heartline).

Storm Runner > Maverick

[hyyyper]

^would it have been the other way around if they let the roll in? [;)]

slaughter evidence anyone?

http://www.pointpics.com/categories.php?cat_id=447

Ya know what would be really funny? If they screwed up the replacement somehow.

Maverick's problems should not really be a surprise. Many new coasters are later reprofiled. Especially if they enter uncharted territory. Take The Beast at Kings Island for example. When they first built The Beast in 1978-79, the track coming out of the first underground tunnel and in the helix was only banked 14 degrees. Not enough. Too much lateral G force which was tearing up the track. They rebanked it after running the coaster for a full season. They had to rebank the helix and first tunnel to 40 degrees and add more wood to the track and extra bracing. Wooden tracks are not made for too much lateral G forces. Not to mention the very uncomfortable ride to the people.
There's a whole list of coasters that have been reprofiled which I'm not going to list here because there would not be enough room.
Thanks goes to Cedar Point for fixing the problem before opening it to the general public.

Wow, I see your point but the 1978-1979 Beast and the 2007 Intamin Maverick are so ridiculously different because of design techniques and general technology that there's really no possible comparison between the two.

I agree with both. I see Trackwalkers point, in which I thank them for doing it before it opens and having it closed for a more majority of the season. Also, Dcs is right because the technology nowadays and the fact that its steel is so diffrent.

Yeah I agree with TrackWalker's last sentence too, I was just speaking of his comparison. I think it is better that they get it fixed now rather than later.

Originally posted by Trackwalker

Maverick's problems should not really be a surprise. Many new coasters are later reprofiled. Especially if they enter uncharted territory. Take The Beast at Kings Island for example. When they first built The Beast in 1978-79, the track coming out of the first underground tunnel and in the helix was only banked 14 degrees. Not enough. Too much lateral G force which was tearing up the track. They rebanked it after running the coaster for a full season. They had to rebank the helix and first tunnel to 40 degrees and add more wood to the track and extra bracing. Wooden tracks are not made for too much lateral G forces. Not to mention the very uncomfortable ride to the people.
There's a whole list of coasters that have been reprofiled which I'm not going to list here because there would not be enough room.
Thanks goes to Cedar Point for fixing the problem before opening it to the general public.

Yeah, WOODEN coasters are reprofiled. They're reprofiled because the damn parks can't handle when coasters are intense and have something called g-force so they make it into a family scenic ride. The Beast had little banking but had a damn powerful helix, and the track could most definitely handle the force.

Beast had strong lateral forces, the way wooden coasters should be built. Park-friendly coasters like GCIs are complete jokes in comparisons to rides that put stress on the track.

Parks aren't doing this for the good of the park-goers, they're doing it because they're cheap and don't want to spend the extra $ to maintain their coasters the right way.

Steel tracks can take more lateral G forces than wood tracks. I agree that comparing a steel coaster with a wood coaster is like comparing apples and oranges. Believe me, if you have ever seen the wear on a wooden track in the curves, you would see why it is necessary to bank the wooden tracks more severely. The side friction steel takes a real beating not to mention the side pressure on the laminations which are held together with 16 penny nails and a long bolt that goes through the entire track. Look at some curves on wooden tracks and you'll see "kickers" on the side of the track to prevent the track from being bent over from all the force. Steel tubular tracks are not affected in that way. The Beast is not as forcefull today because of all the added braking that has been added, not because it is now banked properly at 40 degrees. Here's the harsh reality on side friction steel: screws pop out, nuts fall off and bolts fall out, one day we checked the track while the train was running and found 20 feet of side steel that had fallen off and laying on the ground and this was in a straight section of track where we had no previous problems. Those are the facts. I can't begin to imagine the tremendous pressure on some of these mega-coasters! As far as the top steel goes, it pretty much stays in place and gives no problems. That's the reality on wooden coasters.

Well, wooden coasters are going to wear down the track. That's what's going to happen whether you have a very steeply banked ride or a ride that has a flat 2 lateral g turn. That's what retracking is for. If you have a coaster that pulls high forces, it's going to cost more money to maintain because of all the retracking, but that's the way it goes.

It's absolutely ridiculous to ruin a ride to save a buck or two.

If wooden coasters can't handle the stress, as you say, then how did all those coasters from the 20's - 50's operate? How was the Crystal Beach Cyclone, which probably pulled an unimaginable amount of positive/lateral gs able to operate especially that many years ago? What about all of Schmeck's Wildcat designs, the Idora Park Wildcat in particular (said to have almost rib-crushing lateral gs on the fan turn) able to operate? It's not that the wooden track can't handle it... wooden track can handle just about ANYTHING you throw at it, it's just the parks want to be cheap and not maintain the track enough to give the guests an experience the designer intended the ride to deliver.

I'll agree with you IntaminFan397 that a wooden track can handle anything that is thrown at it, IF THE TRACK IS BUILT PROPERLY. If enough wood is in the track, probably 15 laminations of planed lumber, then the track can take a tremendous amount of lateral G forces. Most tracks today only have 8 laminations of wood and that is not enough to take a great lateral G force. That's the problem with today's coasters; not enough laminations in the track and the track is not strong enough to take the stress of a 150 to 200 foot drop. The old coasters in the 20's and 30's used rough cut lumber as it left the sawmill, which was 2 inches thick. Today's tracks are made with planed lumber which is only 1 5/8 inches thick, so what is needed today is more laminations to equal the track on the 1920's coasters. Also remember that coasters rarely exceeded 100 feet in height during the 1920's and 30's. I agree with you that parks should build the tracks strong enough to take the extra lateral G forces. E-mail your local parks and tell them to do just that.

I'm not questioning your knowledge on this subject as you know far more than I having worked on Screechin' Eagle for many years. I guess what you see as a track not being built strong enough I see as a track needing to be maintained frequently so it isn't ripped apart by the forces sustained on it. Wooden coasters that are built with 8 layers of wood can handle the stress, or the Gravity Group or CCI wouldn't have built the rides they did in the style they did. There are new wooden coasters popping up nowadays still that pull quite a bit of lateral force and these tracks have 8 layers of wood. For example, The Voyage which opened just last year has a few turns with very strong lateral gs, yet has a track made with just 8 layers of wood (http://www.rcdb.com/ig3231.htm?picture=28). All of CCI and GG's rides are still standing and operating with the same force they were intended to deliver and no park has made any significant changes to any of them to my knowledge. They wouldn't be standing if they couldn't handle the stress.

^ Well, two, for the top and bottom wheel to travel on and 6 layers for when there are lateral gs. If there are 8 layers, where is the bottom wheel then? Just making a point.

Originally posted by EElover2

^...where is the bottom wheel then?...

thats the way wooden coasters are constructed, they have wheels on top of those two layers, below the two layers for negative g's, and wheels on the inside for lats.

Yes, I know that 8 layers of wood is sufficient to hold a train on the track. All I'm saying is that in the long run a track that is built stronger with more layers will require less maintenance and give a better ride. I counted 11 layers of wood in the Mean Streak and I'm pretty sure coasters over 150 feet have a beefed up tracks in the high stress areas. I see where you are coming from IntaminFan and I think we agree that lateral G forces are good and not harmful to the rider if kept within permissible limits. The Shooting Star at Coney Island, Cincinnati, Ohio back in 1940 (my favorite coaster) had tremendous lateral G forces as it went through the 360 degree tunnel but that track on that coaster was 9 layers of 2 inch boards for a total thickness of 18 inches. Show me a coaster today that has a track 18 inches thick. You just don't find them today. 8 layers will do the job but an 18 inch thick track will do the job much better and you can enjoy all the lateral G forces you desire, as much as the human body will take. We agree, lateral forces are good, but just build the track so it can handle it with ease. Less maintenance for the workers and a more comfortable ride for the passengers. On the Shooting Star you could enjoy the G forces without getting beat up by a bumpy track.
P.S. Herbert Schmeck designed the Shooting Star at Coney Island, Cincinnati, Ohio.

In conclusion: Build a wood coaster, or steel coaster for that matter, that will deliver the maximum allowable G forces, but build the track strong enough to handle the pressure with ease, and in my opinion its going to take a track with more than 8 layers to handle it with ease and not becomming bumpy down the road. Sure, 8 layers will work, but you'll wind up with a track that sags too much after a couple of years of use and the ride will become very, very bumpy because the track will get weak and start sagging between the ledgers or supports. But that is going to cost extra $$$$ to build that extra thick track and parks like to save $$$$$$$ dollars. Even after years of use, the Shooting Star with its 18 inch thick track still ran like a BRAND NEW roller coaster and provided a GLASS SMOOTH ride and the high LATERAL G's inside the tunnel, with absolutely no bumpy feeling. Why no bumps? Thicker and stronger track. This costs Extra $$$$$. But in the long run, more economical because of less mainenance. 8 layers of wood will feel good and not bumpy in the first couple of years of use but after about 4 or 5 years it will start sagging and become bumpy. After the track starts getting bumpy, you'll see extra supports being added under the track to hold it up. Not good. The Shooting Star never needed any extra supports between the original ledgers. The Shooting Star lasted from 1947 through 1971, 24 years of SMOOTH SAILING without so much of a hint of a bump in the track, something that today's coaster riders will never experience.

"Maverick has been neutered"
ROFL

I like Nate's headline from Coasterdom..

"Maverick to Have No Heart(line)"

Yeah that's a good one too. Anyways, they better speed it the f**k up, the public doesnt want to wait longer than they already had to.

^Well, I agree. Most parts of the second half with extra speed won't do much, and I would like to see an extra flair in Maverick.

Originally posted by IntaminFan397

Originally posted by coasterfan4444

^ Lets stop flaming and get back on topic guys.

On topic: As much as I would have loved to see that roll stay something is telling me that this S curve is going to be just as good. The forces *should* stay close to the same as with the roll but without the stress on the trains. Though I am disappointed that the roll must go out I can see where the problem would be on the trains.

The S-curve is a very weak replacement. There are already two of them on the ride, so this will be the third, and I can't see whats so great about 2 turns linked together (which is what an s-curve is).

Oh well, the ride had a bad layout after the 70mph launch with or without the roll (I don't know what the designer was thinking with that hill then completely random diving turn into the heartline).

Storm Runner > Maverick

Not so sure why you think the hill and turn was random. The heartline seemed random but I think that was definatly intentional. And hidden behind the canyon so that people who arent into coasters wont have a freakin clue what hit em.


But, sadly, I am also betting that where Maverick WOULD have been better than SR, SR will still hold top spot I am thinking. At least for me.

It just seems like it strays off from the general area of the layout too much, and that hill the trim is on is shaped very oddly.

[Brtnboarder495]

How so?






Maybe it's distorted by the banking, or need for banking to keep the heartline intact.

I just got back from my CP trip, and Maverick still looks insane. I don't even care if the heartline is gone anymore, I mean it looked awesome, but I'm sure that ????????? a second would have just got lost in the rest of the ride anyway. And I know that it was that signature element that made you go "holy shiz, I wanna ride", but seriously, the rest looks crazy. Anyone who says the ride's nothing and is gonna suck because the roll is gone, thats ridiculous. Go Maverick! [:D]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about the heartline roll?? I got excited about this ride because of its originality more than anything. The roll did look fun, but really, it's off in some secluded party of the layout anyway...